To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
9 results

Mutual Fund's R 2 as Predictor of Performance

Review of Financial Studies 2013 26(3), 667-694
[We propose that fund performance can be predicted by its R 2 , obtained from a regression of its returns on a multifactor benchmark model. Lower R 2 indicates greater selectivity, and it significantly predicts better performance. Stock funds sorted into lowest-quintile lagged R 2 and highest-quintile lagged alpha produce significant annual alpha of 3.8%. Across funds, R 2 is positively associated with fund size and negatively associated with its expenses and manager's tenure.]

Mutual Fund's R2 as Predictor of Performance

Review of Financial Studies 2012 26(3), 667-694
Abstract We propose that fund performance can be predicted by its R2, obtained from a regression of its returns on a multifactor benchmark model. Lower R2 indicates greater selectivity, and it significantly predicts better performance. Stock funds sorted into lowest-quintile lagged R2 and highest-quintile lagged alpha produce significant annual alpha of 3.8%. Across funds, R2 is positively associated with fund size and negatively associated with its expenses and manager's tenure.

Stock and Bond Market Liquidity: A Long-Run Empirical Analysis

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 2009 44(1), 189-212
Abstract This paper establishes liquidity linkage between stock and Treasury bond markets. There is a lead-lag relationship between illiquidity of the two markets and bidirectional Granger causality. The effect of stock illiquidity on bond illiquidity is consistent with flight-to-quality or flight-to-liquidity episodes. Monetary policy impacts illiquidity. The evidence indicates that bond illiquidity acts as a channel through which monetary policy shocks are transferred into the stock market. These effects are observed across illiquidity of bonds of different maturities and are especially pronounced for illiquidity of short-term maturities. The paper provides evidence of illiquidity integration between stock and bond markets.

Treasury Bond Illiquidity and Global Equity Returns

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 2014 49(5-6), 1227-1253
Abstract In this study, using data from 46 markets and a 34-year time period, we examine the impact of the illiquidity of U.S. Treasuries on global asset valuation. We find that it predicts equity returns in both developed and emerging markets. This predictive relation remains intact after controlling for various world- and country-level variables. Asset pricing tests further reveal that bond illiquidity is a priced factor even in the presence of other conventional risks. Since the illiquidity of Treasuries is known to reflect monetary and macroeconomic shocks, our results suggest that it can be considered a proxy for aggregate worldwide risks.

Disagreement in the Equity Options Market and Stock Returns

Review of Financial Studies 2022 35(3), 1443-1479
Abstract We estimate investor disagreement from synthetic long and short stock trades in the equity options market. We show that high disagreement predicts low stock returns after positive earnings surprises and high stock returns after negative earnings surprises. The negative effect is stronger for high-beta stocks and stocks that are more difficult to sell short. In the cross-section of all stocks and the subset of the 500 largest companies, high disagreement robustly predicts low monthly and weekly stock returns.

Illiquidity Premia in the Equity Options Market

Review of Financial Studies 2018 31(3), 811-851
Standard option valuation models leave no room for option illiquidity premia. Yet we find the risk-adjusted return spread for illiquid over liquid equity options is 3.4% per day for at-the-money calls and 2.5% for at-the-money puts. These premia are computed using option illiquidity measures constructed from intraday effective spreads for a large panel of U.S. equities, and they are robust to different empirical implementations. Our findings are consistent with evidence that market makers in the equity options market hold large and risky net long positions, and positive illiquidity premia compensate them for the risks and costs of these positions.

The Term Structure of Bond Market Liquidity and Its Implications for Expected Bond Returns

Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 2011 46(1), 111-139
Abstract Previous studies of Treasury market illiquidity span short time periods and focus on particular maturities. In contrast, we study the time series of illiquidity for different maturities over an extended period of time. We also compare time-series determinants of on-the-run and off-the-run illiquidity. Illiquidity increases and the difference between spreads of long- and short-term bonds significantly widens during recessions, suggesting a “flight to liquidity,” wherein investors shift into the more liquid short-term bonds during economic contractions. Macroeconomic variables such as inflation and federal funds rates forecast off-the-run illiquidity significantly but have only modest forecasting ability for on-the-run illiquidity. Bond returns across maturities are forecastable by off-the-run but not on-the-run bond illiquidity. Thus, off-the-run illiquidity, by reflecting macro shocks first, is the primary source of the liquidity premium in the Treasury market.

Illiquidity Premia in the Equity Options Market

Review of Financial Studies 2018 31(3), 811-851 open access
Standard option valuation models leave no room for option illiquidity premia. Yet we find the risk-adjusted return spread for illiquid over liquid equity options is 3.4% per day for at-the-money calls and 2.5% for at-the-money puts. These premia are computed using option illiquidity measures constructed from intraday effective spreads for a large panel of U.S. equities, and they are robust to different empirical implementations. Our findings are consistent with evidence that market makers in the equity options market hold large and risky net long positions, and positive illiquidity premia compensate them for the risks and costs of these positions. (JEL G12)

Do liquidity measures measure liquidity?☆

Journal of Financial Economics 2009 92(2), 153-181
Given the key role of liquidity in finance research, identifying high quality proxies based on daily (as opposed to intraday) data would permit liquidity to be studied over relatively long timeframes and across many countries. Using new measures and widely employed measures in the literature, we run horseraces of annual and monthly estimates of each measure against liquidity benchmarks. Our benchmarks are effective spread, realized spread, and price impact based on both Trade and Quote (TAQ) and Rule 605 data. We find that the new effective/realized spread measures win the majority of horseraces, while the Amihud [2002. Illiquidity and stock returns: cross-section and time-series effects. Journal of Financial Markets 5, 31–56] measure does well measuring price impact.